Stirring the Pot, 3: What about the so-called Laws of Thought/First Principles of Right Reason?

_{kairosfocus

March 20, 2013

ID Foundations, Logic and Reason, worldview}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Cf follow up on laws of thought including cause, here

In our day, it is common to see the so-called Laws of Thought or First Principles of Right Reason challenged or dismissed. As a rule, design thinkers strongly tend to reject this common trend, including when it is claimed to be anchored in quantum theory.

Going beyond, here at UD it is common to see design thinkers saying that rejection of the laws of thought is tantamount to rejection of rationality, and is a key source of endless going in evasive rhetorical circles and refusal to come to grips with the most patent facts; often bogging down attempted discussions of ID issues.

The debate has hotted up over the past several days, and so it is back on the front burner.

But, why are design thinkers today inclined to swim so strongly against a cultural tide that may often seem to be overwhelming?

Perhaps, Wikipedia, speaking against known ideological inclination on the Law of Thought, may help us begin to see why:

That everything be ‘the same with itself and different from another’ (law of identity) is the self-evident first principle upon which all symbolic communication systems (languages) are founded, for it governs the use of those symbols (names, words, pictograms, etc.) which denote the various individual concepts within a language, so as to eliminate ambiguity in the conveyance of those concepts between the users of the language. Such a principle (law) is necessary because symbolic designators have no inherent meaning of their own, but derive their meaning from the language users themselves, who associate each symbol with an individual concept in a manner that has been conventionally prescribed within their linguistic group . . . .

we cannot think without making use of some form of language (symbolic communication), for thinking entails the manipulation and amalgamation of simpler concepts in order to form more complex ones, and therefore, we must have a means of distinguishing these different concepts. It follows then that the first principle of language (law of identity) is also rightfully called the first principle of thought, and by extension, the first principle reason (rational thought).

In short, to think reasonably about the world, we must mentally dichotomise, and once that is done, the first principles of right reason apply.

For instance (to connect to reality not just words), consider say a bright red ball on a table:

Where Jupiter (seen here in IR some days after the Shoemaker-Levy 9 multiple comet impact) is the ultimate “red ball” — but one — in our solar system:

Or, analysing in terms of an abstraction of this observational/experiential situation that brings out the laws of thought and the issue of warrant against accuracy to experiential reality:

Okay, you may say: that addresses the world of thinking. In cases where we mark distinctions, then the distinction obtains, but that does not bridge to reality.

Or, does it?

So long as there is a distinction between the red ball on the table and the rest of the world, and so long as it is inevitable that we do know something about the world, on pain of absurdity, these will also apply to external reality. The laws are objective not just subjective.

Take, one who suggests there is an ugly gulch between our inner world of appearances and thoughts, and the outer one of things in themselves, so that we can never bridge the gap.

But, to make such a claim is to make a claim to know something about external reality, its alleged un-knowable nature.

Self-referential incoherence leading to confusion, in short.

(That will not faze some, but that only tells the rest of us, that such are beyond the reach of reason. Pray for them, that is their only hope.)

So, we are back at the objectivity of these first principles of right reason.

Let me now clip a comment just made in the KN thread:

This, from Wiki speaking against known ideological inclination, on the Laws of Thought c. Feb 2012 [cf Rationale], may help in understanding how the three key first principles of right reason are inextricably linked:

The law of non-contradiction and the law of excluded middle are not separate laws per se, but correlates of the law of identity. That is to say, they are two interdependent and complementary principles that inhere naturally (implicitly) within the law of identity, as its essential nature . . . whenever we ‘identify’ a thing as belonging to a certain class or instance of a class, we intellectually set that thing apart from all the other things in existence which are ‘not’ of that same class or instance of a class. In other words, the proposition, “A is A and A is not ~A” (law of identity) intellectually partitions a universe of discourse (the domain of all things) into exactly two subsets, A and ~A, and thus gives rise to a dichotomy. As with all dichotomies, A and ~A must then be ‘mutually exclusive’ and ‘jointly exhaustive’ with respect to that universe of discourse. In other words, ‘no one thing can simultaneously be a member of both A and ~A’ (law of non-contradiction), whilst ‘every single thing must be a member of either A or ~A’ (law of excluded middle).

See what happens so soon as we make a clear and crisp distinction?

Therefore, why I highlight how we are using glyphs, characters, words, sentences, symbols, relations, expressions etc in trying to make all of these novel “logics” or Quantum speculations, etc?

That is, we inescapably are marking distinctions and are dichotomising reality, into (T|NOT-T) . . . (H|NOT_H) . . . (A|NOT_A) . . . (T|NOT_T) etc. just to type out a sentence. The stability of identity of T, H, A, T then leads straight to the correlates, that we have marked a distinction that is “‘mutually exclusive’ and ‘jointly exhaustive’ with respect to that universe of discourse.”

The implication is, that so soon as we make sharp distinctions and identify things on the one side thereof, we are facing the underlying significance of such distinctions: A is A, A is not NOT_A, and there is not a fuzzy thing out there other than A and NOT_A. of course, there are spectra or trends or timelines that credibly have a smooth gradation along a continuum, there are superpositions and there are trichotomies etc [which can be reduced to structured sets of dichotomies). But so soon as we are even just talking of this, we are inescapably back to the business of making (A|NOT_A) distinctions.

That is where I find myself standing this morning.

What about you? END

Comments

BD, Just to highlight: can language refer to the world, to objects and states of affairs? (Hint: trick question -- self referential.) KFkairosfocus_{March 21, 2013
March
03
Mar
21
21
2013
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT}

F/N: To make it clear that I am intending to speak on both sides of the inner/outer world divide -- itself an application of the principle of dichotomy! -- I have added to the original post a case of an actual red ball on a table, thanks to a child bloggist experimenting with photography. KFkairosfocus_{March 21, 2013
March
03
Mar
21
21
2013
12:49 AM
12
12
49
AM
PDT}

Bruce: "Since the law of non-contradiction applies to the concepts that are embedded in language, the question is a misapplication of categories. It is meaningless, like asking “What color is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?” Strictly speaking, the Law of Non-Contradiction applies to language and truth while the Law of Identity, which is its ontological component, applies to the things in the real world and truth. So, if you like, we can rephrase the question: Do you believe that the Law of Identity (the Ontological component of the Law of Identity) applies to the real world?StephenB_{March 20, 2013
March
03
Mar
20
20
2013
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT}

F/N: I forget, we live in a Web Archive age, here is the key passage in Bradley, in context, from the 1897 scanned copy of the book as was just linked: _______________ >>INTRODUCTION. The writer on metaphysics has a great deal against him. Engaged on a subject which more than others demands peace of spirit, even before he enters on the controversies of his own field, he finds himself involved in a sort of warfare. He is confronted by prejudices hostile to his study, and he is tempted to lean upon those prejudices, within him and around him, which seem contrary to the first. It is on the preconceptions adverse to metaphysics in general that I am going to make some remarks by way of introduction. We may agree, perhaps, to understand by metaphysics an attempt to know reality as against mere appearance, or the study of first principles or ultimate truths, or again the effort to comprehend the universe, not simply piecemeal or by fragments, but somehow as a whole. Any such pursuit will encounter a number of objections. It will have to hear that the knowledge which it desires to obtain is impossible altogether; or, if possible in some degree, is yet practically useless ; or that, at all events, we can want nothing beyond the old philosophies. And I will say a few words on these arguments in their order. (a) The man who is ready to prove that metaphysical knowledge is wholly impossible has no right here to any answer. He must be referred for conviction to the body of this treatise. And he can hardly refuse to go there, since he himself has, perhaps unknowingly, entered the arena. He is a brother metaphysician with a rival theory of first principles. And this is so plain that I must excuse myself from dwelling on the point. To say the reality is such that our knowledge cannot reach it, is a claim to know reality; to urge that our knowledge is of a kind which must fail to transcend appearance, itself implies that transcendence. For, if we had no idea of a beyond, we should assuredly not know how to talk about failure or success. And the test, by which we distinguish them, must obviously be some acquaintance with the nature of the goal. Nay, the would-be sceptic, who presses on us the contradictions of our thoughts, himself asserts dogmatically. For these contradictions might be ultimate and absolute truth, if the nature of the reality were not known to be otherwise. But this introduction is not the place to discuss a class of objections which are themselves, however unwillingly, metaphysical views, and which a little acquaintance with the subject commonly serves to dispel. So far as is necessary, they will be dealt with in their proper place ; and I will therefore pass to the second main argument against metaphysics. (6) It would be idle to deny that this possesses great force. " Metaphysical knowledge," it insists, " may be possible theoretically, and even actual, if you please, to a certain degree; but, for all that, it is practically no knowledge worth the name." And this objection may be rested on various grounds. I will state some of these, and will make the answers which appear to me to be sufficient . . . . How much we can ascertain about reality will be discussed in this book; but I may say at once that I expect a very partial satisfaction. I am so bold as to believe that we have a knowledge of the Absolute, certain and real, though I am sure that our comprehension is miserably incomplete. But I dissent emphatically from the conclusion that, because imperfect, it is worthless. And I must suggest to the objector that he should open his eyes and should consider human nature. Is it possible to abstain from thought about the universe ? I do not mean merely that to every one the whole body of things must come in the gross, whether consciously or unconsciously, in a certain way. I mean that, by various causes, even the average man is compelled to wonder and to reflect. To him the world, and his share in it. is a natural object of thought, and seems likely to remain one. And so, when poetry, art, and religion have ceased wholly to interest, or when they show no longer any tendency to struggle with ultimate problems and to come to an understanding with them ; when the sense of mystery and enchantment no longer draws the mind to wander aim-lessly and to love it knows not what; when, in short, twilight has no charm—then metaphysics will be worthless. For the question (as things are now) is not whether we are to reflect and ponder on ultimate truth—for perhaps most of us do that, and are not likely to cease. The question is merely as to the way in which this should be done. And the claim of metaphysics is surely not unreasonable. Metaphysics takes its stand on this side of human nature, this desire to think about and comprehend reality. And it merely asserts that, if the attempt is to be made, it should be done as thoroughly as our nature permits. There is no claim on its part to supersede other functions of the human mind ; but it protests that, if we are to think, we should sometimes try to think properly. And the opponent of metaphysics, it appears to me, is driven to a dilemma. He must either condemn all reflection on the essence of things,—and, if so, he breaks, or, rather, tries to break, with part of the highest side of human nature,—or else he allows us to think, but not to think strictly. He permits, that is to say, the exercise of thought so long as it is entangled with other functions of our being; but as soon as it attempts a pure development of its own, guided by the principles of its own distinctive working, he prohibits it forthwith. And this appears to be a paradox, since it seems equivalent to saying, You may satisfy your instinctive longing to reflect, so long as you do it in a way which is unsatisfactory . . . [cf. the linked for more, much more]>> ________________ I trust this will be enough to show that it is by no means beyond doubt that the ugly gulch between appearance and reality imposes an insuperable barrier that none can cross. Nor, are my concerns the mere pratings of a silly little blog commenter who carries no weight, or the talking points of one whom many would unjustly dismiss as a mere debater. Bradley, a British Idealist philosopher, was not only a [non-teaching . . . free to research] fellow of Oxford, but the very first Philosopher to be awarded an Order of Merit -- a dynastic order recognising distinguished service in the armed forces, science, art, literature, or for the promotion of culture, limited to 24 living recipients -- in the UK. I do not cite such to say F H Bradley was right by dint of being an authority, but to say that the "X was eminent and brilliant" argument plainly cuts both ways. So, let us revert to addressing the matter on the actual merits, as already outlined. KFkairosfocus_{March 20, 2013
March
03
Mar
20
20
2013
11:22 PM
11
11
22
PM
PDT}

SB and BD: I have indeed raised a concern about the classic Kantian approach, however, the point can hardly be said to be original to me. (I never intended to imply such a claim.) Here is William Lane Craig in turn citing F H Bradley from 1930:
insofar as these . . . assumptions include Kant's strictures on the scope of scientific knowledge, they are deeply, fatally flawed. For Kant must at least be claiming to have knowledge of the way some things (e.g., the mind and its structures and operations) exist in themselves and not merely as they appear; he confidently affirms that the idea of God, for instance, has the property of unknowability. [10] So the theory relies on knowledge that the theory, if it was true, would not -- could not -- allow. [ Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment, ed. Paul Copan (Downer's Grove, IL: IVP, 2000), p. 13. NB: Ref. [10] is to Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief, pp. 3 - 30, and is shortly followed by a reference to F. H. Bradley's gentle but stinging opening salvo in his Appearance and Reality, 2nd Edn.: that "The man who is ready to prove that metaphysical knowledge is impossible has . . . himself . . . perhaps unknowingly, entered the arena [of metaphysics] . . . . To say that reality is such that our knowledge cannot reach it, is to claim to know reality." (Clarendon Press, 1930), p.1]
BD, you need to address the ugly gulch and to show how the concept of objective warrant that justifies beliefs as credibly true -- corresponding accurately to reality -- cannot bridge from the inner world of our perceptions and thoughts, to the outer one of the world in which we live. Where, even what I commonly call, warranted, credible truth no 1: Royce's Error exists, is a case of certain knowledge concerning objective states of affairs. That is, even to try to deny this claim, is to imply and substantiate it by instance, it is undeniably true. Namely, there are statements or thoughts that fail to accurately correspond to external reality, something that those ugly red X-marks in grade school make all too vividly clear as we take up our first steps in doing sums. In addition, you need to face the challenge that to assert that one cannot know concerning the external world seemingly implies at least two points of such claimed knowledge of that world: (i) that it exists and is known to exist, and (ii) that it is known to have the characteristic of un-knowability. On fair comment, it seems to me that both (i) and (ii) would constitute knowledge claims about that external world and so are indeed self referential and incoherent, a denial of the possibility of knowledge of the external world that implies knowledge claims to just such forbidden knowledge. But then, that is exactly the point of the problem, and it seems to be one root of the modern dubiousness on the law of non-contradiction, which as I have pointed out in the original post, is a facet of the reality of distinct identity. I agree with SB, that there are three aspects to the law:
(i) ONTOLOGICAL: so soon as a distinct state of affairs or object exists in the real world and has an identity, A [perhaps, our bright red ball on a table from childhood], then we have an existing state of partition, {A|NOT_A} which is all we need for the three laws to be in action in the external world. (ii) PSYCHOLOGICAL: so soon as we perceive or believe that a certain state of affairs or object exists in that external world or even in our inner world of thought, we have similarly partitioned, where A now represents a perception or belief. (iii) LOGICAL & LINGUISTIC (semantics): once we assert in thought or speech that A is a distinct state of affairs or object, we have asserted a partition that brings to bear the logic of distinct identity.
Each of these levels interacts with the others, and responds to the primary one, the real world case where we do in fact have distinct objects and states of affairs. Which, however imperfect our overall state of knowledge, we can and do know some things concerning. In certain cases, even to undeniable certainty. KFkairosfocus_{March 20, 2013
March
03
Mar
20
20
2013
11:09 PM
11
11
09
PM
PDT}

Stephen, re #19. As I stated in #12, I side with the mystics that language is totally inadequate to describe Reality. Since the law of non-contradiction applies to the concepts that are embedded in language, the question is a misapplication of categories. It is meaningless, like asking "What color is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?"Bruce David_{March 20, 2013
March
03
Mar
20
20
2013
10:57 PM
10
10
57
PM
PDT}

Stephen, re #18:
Kairosfocus is right. Kant refutes himself. By claiming that we can know nothing of the real world, he is, at the same time, claiming to know something about the real world, namely that we cannot know it.
You are mistaken. The statement is a statement about the human condition, not about the real world. It is a statement regarding the limits of what it is possible for us to know, which says nothing about the nature of the world external to ourselves. To assert that "We can know nothing of external reality." is a statement about external reality is absurd. It's a statement about us. It makes no statement whatsoever about the nature of external reality. Kant was no fool. I am sure that if he thought there was any merit to a criticism such as yours and KF's, he could easily have fixed it by simply adding the phrase, "other than that we can know nothing of its nature." He evidently saw no need to do so, and rightly so.Bruce David_{March 20, 2013
March
03
Mar
20
20
2013
10:41 PM
10
10
41
PM
PDT}

Bruce, I would not want to misrepresent you. Perhaps Bobmo, Box, and myself misunderstood you. It's an easy enough thing to clear up. Does the Law of Non-Contradiction apply to the real world?StephenB_{March 20, 2013
March
03
Mar
20
20
2013
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT}

Stephen, re #16:
You have already stated that you do have a problem with the Law of Non-Contradiction, which, by definition, has a logical, psychological, and ontological component, each of which is inseparable from the other. By saying that it does not apply to the real world (the ontological component), you are denying the law.
What I wrote was the following. If you will read it carefully you will see that I stated that the rules of reason allow us to manipulate the concepts which underlie language and with which we organize our experience. I made no statement one way or the other regarding whether they apply to the "real world".
As the OP points out, “the principles of right reason” are a function of language. They allow us to think and discuss the concepts with which we organize our experience. Those concepts, however, are not reality. They constitute the filters through which we perceive and organize our experience.
Bruce David_{March 20, 2013
March
03
Mar
20
20
2013
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus: "But, to make such a claim is to make a claim to know something about external reality, its alleged un-knowable nature." Bruce: "Wow, you have dispensed with Kant, one of the greatest thinkers in Western philosophy, with a quick one-liner. Very impressive." Kairosfocus is right. Kant refutes himself. By claiming that we can know nothing of the real world, he is, at the same time, claiming to know something about the real world, namely that we cannot know it.StephenB_{March 20, 2013
March
03
Mar
20
20
2013
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT}

Bruce: "Then he should ask me: “Bruce, do you have a problem with the law of non-contradiction?” Why would I ask you to answer a question that you have already answered? You have already stated that you do have a problem with the Law of Non-Contradiction, which, by definition, has a logical, psychological, and ontological component, each of which is inseparable from the other. By saying that it does not apply to the real world (the ontological component), you are denying the law. My question is a follow up question to your answer: Can the planet that we call Jupiter (which is part of the real world) exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way. You might answer by saying, "As I stated, the Law of Non-Contradiction, which pertains only to language, is not binding on the real world, therefore there is no reason why Jupiter cannot exist and not exist at the same time." Or, you might say, "Since you have provided a concrete example, I now understand that the Law of Non-Contradiction would have to apply to the real world, otherwise it would make no sense and there would be no point to it." Its one or the other. All you have to do is pick one.StephenB_{March 20, 2013
March
03
Mar
20
20
2013
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT}

Box, re #14: Then he should ask me: "Bruce, do you have a problem with the law of non-contradiction?" I'm willing to have a discussion of our respective views and ideas. I'm not willing any more to play one-upsmanship games where the purpose of the comments of people who disagree with me is apparently to try to trap me into some kind of contradiction so they can "win".Bruce David_{March 20, 2013
March
03
Mar
20
20
2013
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT}

@Bruce David (13) The point is to find out if you have a problem with the law of non-contradiction.Box_{March 20, 2013
March
03
Mar
20
20
2013
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT}

Stephen, re. #11:
Can the planet that we call Jupiter exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way?
What is the point of this question?Bruce David_{March 20, 2013
March
03
Mar
20
20
2013
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT}

Bobmo:
Bruce David, do you see the irony of your comment?
If you mean that I am using language to convey this "truth", then yes, of course I see it. But this truth is not what I mean when I capitalize the word. That "Truth" might be characterized as the essential nature of Reality. The problem is, though, that language is all we have with which to communicate. If, as the mystics aver and I believe, language is incapable of conveying the Truth, then we're kind of stuck. However, the good news is that language can be used by a master to point the way to the Truth, or to help someone to open up so that Truth can be seen directly. This is why, after declaring that "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.", Lao Tzu continues writing for 80 more verses. He is attempting to open the reader to the point where a direct vision or awareness of the Truth becomes possible, or at least to set the reader on a path that will eventually culminate in such an awareness.Bruce David_{March 20, 2013
March
03
Mar
20
20
2013
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

Bruce: "Those concepts, however, are not reality." Can the planet that we call Jupiter exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way?StephenB_{March 20, 2013
March
03
Mar
20
20
2013
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT}

Bruce David, do you see the irony of your comment?Bobmo_{March 20, 2013
March
03
Mar
20
20
2013
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT}

From the OP:
Take, one who suggests there is an ugly gulch between our inner world of appearances and thoughts, and the outer one of things in themselves, so that we can never bridge the gap. But, to make such a claim is to make a claim to know something about external reality, its alleged un-knowable nature.
Wow, you have dispensed with Kant, one of the greatest thinkers in Western philosophy, with a quick one-liner. Very impressive. As the OP points out, "the principles of right reason" are a function of language. They allow us to think and discuss the concepts with which we organize our experience. Those concepts, however, are not reality. They constitute the filters through which we perceive and organize our experience. But what if Lao Tzu was right when he wrote,
The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The unnamable is the eternally real. Naming is the origin of all particular things.
What if my former teacher, Reshad Feild, was right when he delcared,"Reason is powerless in the expression of Love."? What if mystics from all traditions are right when they say that language is incapable of conveying the truth of Reality? If so, then we need some other means than the use of reason, or even, ultimately, language itself, to discern Truth. Is it possible that there is more, KF, betwixt Heaven and Earth than is drempt of in your philosophy?Bruce David_{March 20, 2013
March
03
Mar
20
20
2013
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT}

Semi related:
In The Weekly Standard, Andrew Ferguson Offers the Best Explication Yet of Nagel's Book and the Nagel Affair - March 20, 2013 Excerpt: "A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions -- understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots -- wouldn't just be a materialist: He'd be a psychopath." Andrew Ferguson - The Weekly Standard - March 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/03/in_the_weekly_s070221.html
bornagain77_{March 20, 2013
March
03
Mar
20
20
2013
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

Semi OT: Reductive Materialism (i.e. atheism) found wanting as explanation for observed brain wave patterns:
'Brain Waves' Challenge Area-Specific View of Brain Activity - Mar. 20, 2013 Excerpt: Our understanding of brain activity has traditionally been linked to brain areas – when we speak, the speech area of the brain is active. New research by an international team of psychologists led by David Alexander and Cees van Leeuwen (KU Leuven – University of Leuven) shows that this view may be overly rigid. The entire cortex, not just the area responsible for a certain function, is activated when a given task is initiated. Furthermore, activity occurs in a pattern: waves of activity roll from one side of the brain to the other.,,, ,,,the psychologists explore uncharted territory: "We are examining the activity in the cerebral cortex as a whole. The brain is a non-stop, always-active system. When we perceive something, the information does not end up in a specific part of our brain. Rather, it is added to the brain's existing activity. If we measure the electrochemical activity of the whole cortex, we find wave-like patterns. This shows that brain activity is not local but rather that activity constantly moves from one part of the brain to another. The local activity in the Brodmann areas only appears when you average over many such waves.” Each activity wave in the cerebral cortex is unique. "When someone repeats the same action, such as drumming their fingers, the motor centre in the brain is stimulated. But with each individual action, you still get a different wave across the cortex as a whole.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130320115111.htm
bornagain77_{March 20, 2013
March
03
Mar
20
20
2013
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

Timothya you ask:
How are we to tell if you are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked?
That would pose quite the dilemma for people who hold to a worldview that cannot ground reason or morality wouldn't it?
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner - 1960 Excerpt: certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin's process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,, http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html Scientific Peer Review is in Trouble: From Medical Science to Darwinism - Mike Keas - October 10, 2012 Excerpt: Survival is all that matters on evolutionary naturalism. Our evolving brains are more likely to give us useful fictions that promote survival rather than the truth about reality. Thus evolutionary naturalism undermines all rationality (including confidence in science itself). Renown philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued against naturalism in this way (summary of that argument is linked on the site:). Or, if your short on time and patience to grasp Plantinga's nuanced argument, see if you can digest this thought from evolutionary cognitive psychologist Steve Pinker, who baldly states: "Our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth; sometimes the truth is adaptive, sometimes it is not." Steven Pinker, evolutionary cognitive psychologist, How the Mind Works (W.W. Norton, 1997), p. 305. http://blogs.christianpost.com/science-and-faith/scientific-peer-review-is-in-trouble-from-medical-science-to-darwinism-12421/ “One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the popular scientific philosophy]. The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears… unless Reason is an absolute, all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.” —C.S. Lewis, Is Theology Poetry (aka the Argument from Reason) The Knock-Down Argument Against Atheist Sam Harris' moral landscape argument – William Lane Craig – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL_vAH2NIPc Richard Dawkins and the Moral Argument for God by William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f3I2QGpucs R.C. Sproul and Stephen Meyer Explain Ethics – video – 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzQwyq_e9fI Stephen Meyer - Morality Presupposes Theism (1 of 4) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSpdh1b0X_M
bornagain77_{March 20, 2013
March
03
Mar
20
20
2013
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

OT: Dr. Paul Nelson, of Discovery Institute, has a new 'light-hearted' video interview up: Dr. Seuss Biology | Origins with Dr. Paul A. Nelson - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVx42Izp1ek accompanying pdf http://www.ctvn.org/origins/pdf/1212%20Dr%20Seuss%20Biology.pdfbornagain77_{March 20, 2013
March
03
Mar
20
20
2013
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

Ah, WJM: I think in many cases, people are simply intimidated by the dominating power of current conventional wisdom. All those folks out there with big degrees saying that Aristotelian reasoning is passe silly black-white thinking [actually, any shade of pink, green or blue would do to be in NOT_White], is disproved -- oops! -- by claimed quantum counter-examples, is a silly resort of neo-fascist potentially genocidal cultists of the ever so unpleasant Bronze age fiction in the sky, and besides, right and wrong are matters of personal opinion, and so much and so forth. Multiply by the swarm down game with anyone who dares say: but der Emperor hasn't got a thread of clothes on him. Or, maybe someone out there can show us why we are wrong, are mistaken, are in error (hint: trick question). KFkairosfocus_{March 20, 2013
March
03
Mar
20
20
2013
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT}

I'm sipping my morning coffee, wondering what would drive someone to reject the rules of right reason, and the only answer I can come up with is that it's because they know, on some level, that employing the rules of right reason will take them somewhere they don't want to go. Perhaps one abandons such rules, or denies their authority, to preemptively take the teeth out of any argument that would demonstrate their beliefs wrong. After all, you can't ever prove someone wrong if they deny they are bound to any objective arbiter of truth values, including something so basic as the ~~law~~ suggestion of non-contradictionWilliam J Murray_{March 20, 2013
March
03
Mar
20
20
2013
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT}

KF posted this:
Is reason itself now in the balance, and is it the “ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked” who are standing up in its defense?
How are we to tell if you are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked?timothya_{March 20, 2013
March
03
Mar
20
20
2013
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT}

Is reason itself now in the balance, and is it the "ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked" who are standing up in its defense?kairosfocus_{March 20, 2013
March
03
Mar
20
20
2013
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply